Greg Stark wrote:
You may
not expect to be need to run queries which combine multiple users'
data now but you will eventually.
We store cross-user data in a separate schema, which solves all *our*
problems.
This doesn't work so great when each user is going to be specifying
their own cus
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Mike Ivanov wrote:
>> i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
>>
>> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2 tables
>> = 4.000 tables!
>
> As a someone with a ~50K-table database, I can tell you it's definitely
> possib
Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
Hi to all,
i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
As a someone with a ~50K-table database, I can tell you it's definitely
possible to survive with such a
Greg Stark wrote:
> Creating new catalog entries for [temp tables] gives up -- what I
> think is the whole point of their design -- their lack of DDL
> overhead.
As long as we're brainstorming... Would it make any sense for temp
tables to be created as in-memory tuplestores up to the point th
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Alvaro
Herrera wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to have a solution to that where you could create
>> lightweight temporary objects which belong to an "application session"
>> which can be picked up by a different database connection each go
>> around
I think this requirement can be lumped into the category of "right
hammer, right nail" instead of the "one hammer, all nails" category.
There are many memory only or disk backed memory based key value
stores which meet your requirements like Reddis and memcached.
-Jerry
Jerry Champlin|Abs
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Alvaro
Herrera wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to have a solution to that where you could create
>> lightweight temporary objects which belong to an "application session"
>> which can be picked up by a different database connection each go
>> around
Greg Stark wrote:
> It would be nice to have a solution to that where you could create
> lightweight temporary objects which belong to an "application session"
> which can be picked up by a different database connection each go
> around.
It would be useful:
CREATE SCHEMA session1234 UNLOGGED
C
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Craig James wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> What you want is a multi-column primary key where userid is part of
>> the key. You don't want to have a separate table for each user unless
>> each user has their own unique set of columns.
> Not always true.
...
> The
Greg Stark wrote:
What you want is a multi-column primary key where userid is part of
the key. You don't want to have a separate table for each user unless
each user has their own unique set of columns.
Not always true.
When the user logs back in, a hidden part of the login process gets a tab
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Craig James wrote:
> Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
>>
>> i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
>>
>> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2 tables
>> = 4.000 tables!
>>
>> Postgres support an elevate number of tables??
Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Postgres support an elevate number of tables??
i have problem of performance ???
We have run databases with over 1
Craig Ringer ha scritto:
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:01 +0200, Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Hmm, ok. Does each user really need two tables each? Why?
Does the set of tables for each user have a different stru
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:01 +0200, Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
> tables = 4.000 tables!
Hmm, ok. Does each user really need two tables each? Why?
Does the set of tables for each user have a different structure? Or are
you separa
Thursday, August 20, 2009, 9:01:30 AM you wrote:
> i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
> tables = 4.000 tables!
If all tables are created equal, I would rethink the design. Instead of
using 2 tables p
Hi to all,
i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Postgres support an elevate number of tables??
i have problem of performance ???
Thanks
Sorry for my english
--
Sent via pgsql
16 matches
Mail list logo
